On another forum not related to atheism, there is a thread called "What do you think of atheists?" As you can imagine, there is all sorts of generalization and nonsense. I'll probably be told to fuck off soon, even though I'm not the one calling people "evil." Just posting this so all of you atheists know you are not artistic, you can't be trusted, and you are probably an evil asshole.

Quote:while Comp Sci is largely Atheist, I think your odds of finding Deists goes up dramatically in the math department. Comp Sci is a "drier", more mechanical field. You can use computers to create beautiful things, but the nuts and bolts are highly prosaic and encourage a strictly mechanical mindset. Math is also highly rational, but it's also rather more intuitive, and more artistic.

This seems to be saying that atheists cannot be creative or intuitive. I knew a lot of theist comp sci majors. And I was an atheist who went to college for fine arts one time, and languages the second time.

Theist Wrote:I don't trust athiests. I could do horrid things without fear of a god striking me down.

THEIST 1

Quote:They're as bad as religious people, it is a belief, a belief in no god. Believing in something doesn't make it real, so seems ultimately pointless. You're basically fooling yourself into thinking something is right. I don't believe in things, can't see the point.

THEIST 2

Quote:I am a Christian Apologist, I spend my time arguing with the dears. I love them, my life wouldn't have any purpose if there wasn't evil to counter (By the way that's my answer to the Problem of Evil). I love the New Atheist clique for its blatant ignorance (I do find Dawkins a fine fellow, a nice old man who should have stuck to genetics rather than attempt philosophy about which he is totally ignorant; and I thoroughly enjoy Hitchens' Marxist and sentimentalist rhetoric); but I also love the existentialist bunch for their challenging wisdom and their strange way of taking relativism seriously. The Spinozaico-empiricist bunch is fun too, quite amazing bravery in every sense of the term (takes courage to tell yourself that your life is utterly meaningless).

No, it is not a belief. It is "lack of belief", usually due to lack of evidence. Most atheists are skeptics, which means they withhold belief until sufficient evidence is presented. This is a common misconception, though. It requires absolutely no "faith" to be an atheist. On the other hand, it required much faith to be a christian, since there is no evidence for a christian god. That is why christians value faith, because they need to believe in spite of lack of evidence.

AMYB
The reason I dislike Christianity (more than Judaism, for example) is because they often put a lot of emphasis on converting people, and many of them in US gov't try to make lasw based on their beliefs, wanting to impose their religion on everyone, xian or not. That is the very opposite of "live and let live." I have never seen an atheist try to convert people, only to explain the reasons they do not believe in god(s). For some reasons, many theists take this as an attack or disrespect. Christians talk about their "faith" all the time, so I don't see why people should find it offensive if atheists explain their lack of beliefs in deities should be a problem.

Also, theists are told not to question their beliefs, or that questioning is a weakness, or a sign of temptation by the devil. The reason many atheists debate is to examine the evidence and to explore other points of view.

THEIST 2

Quote:You see, the very simple and actually quite ethical reason that Christians attempt to convert people is something you may not understand; they actually believe what they're saying. Consequentially, we see it as our ethical duty to convert, since this leads people to not just worldly goodness but infinite goodness. Not to attempt a conversion is to allow a person to fall into ultimate zero, non-existence, Das Nichtige. Like letting them fall off a cliff- the only difference is that the person walking off a cliff doesn't know what he's doing, and, as you try to shove him into safety, he's blindly squabbling and pushing back, obsessively ploughing on. Oh yes, and the cliff won't just destroy his life but his very purpose- ultimately He Will Have Failed. We don't want people to fail. So we convert. New Atheism does something like this, as does existentialism; they believe that you have wasted your life if you are religious, and, moreover, they believe that you may cause great evil unless all religion is eradicated. So you see, there is true ethicality in conversion, and I praise the New Atheists for their valiant efforts, even though I see them as evil- not only are they speeding towards the cliff's edge but they're convincing others that the crags below are bouncy green pastures.

You bring up a good point though: many christians think they are helping people by converting. However, this is not at all how most nonchristians see it. My problem is not with the christians, but with the religion, whoever it was that start telling christians to try to convert others, whether by force or not. Nonchristians tend to see this as an irritating nuisance, since we were not indoctrinated or have left the religion, it seems quite disrespectful. I can handle pagans and Jews and buddhists and all types that do not try to push their religion on me.

Just because a christian thinks they are doing the right thing by conversion doesn't mean they are doing a good thing; it mainly only proves that they were successfully indoctrinated into their religion and think others should beleive as they do.

THEIST 2

Quote:'I'm afraid to say, you sound like you haven't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever.' Well, if you think that the only reason Christians have behind belief is the Heart thing, which is a component of faith to the same extent as Thomistic and Cartesian reason (for example), then that statement applies to you.

I just got done with Josh McDowell's 'new evidence that demands a verdict.' i found it just as unconvincing as every other apologetics book. It's not my ignorance of apologetics' arguments, it's that they don't use actual logic, they use all sorts of logical fallacies and mental gymnastics, in my experience.